* davidcyl's postings produce a summary of prior actions to nish as a later comer. |
The use of "we" and "I" in two separate postings indicates the issue of accountability.
* davidcyl's postings produce a summary of prior actions to nish as a later comer. The use of "we" and "I" in two separate postings indicates the issue of accountability: the formula for the number of squares is considered by davidcyl as something ratified by the group but the method of dividing the sticks into horizontal and vertical ones is proposed by him but not responded or endorsed by the group. Could this be about how takes the credit of the work?|
* Steve made the observation that upon the moderator's request for catching nish up, Jason and davidcyl respond but nish does not even though there is a question specifically addressed to him from the moderator. Is this about the issue of who is holding the floor of conversation at the moment? (Could it be about the competency of asking a question?)
* How the data session should be run:
** It does not necessarily have to be organized by going through the data sequentially. In the end, each of the graduate students will have to be able to present and defend a set of findings, each of which could be from across multiple sessions. In the future data sessions, it would work more effectively for the graduate students to formulate some of their findings, possibly present one finding at a time and use examples to support it so it can be a convincing argument that the audience would not need to go through the details of the data to see it.